J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

suicide_circus

Gruffalox wrote: »

It's an exploratory position held by one non trans man.

As James Brown sang, this is a non trans man's world.

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

As James Brown sang, this is a non trans man's world.

Or as Shania might say, Non Trans man, I feel like a non trans woman.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Someone who thinks that babies were fed is in no position to give history lessons, or any other lessons, to anyone.

Actually they are, in spite of your continuing attempts to discredit their opinions by taking what they’ve said in a completely different discussion to try and undermine their opinions. Have at it if you like, for whatever you imagine it will achieve.

Brian Hartman

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Haven't seen the person in question post that... but, I think they are either a troll, or take things at face value.

I'm not in favour of censorship, I'd rather discourse and debate. I've tried with the person in question, and some of the things they have posted have helped me come to the conclusion that it is pointless to engage with them. Let them waffle their views, doesn't mean we have to listen to them, nor does it mean we have the right to stop them posting.

I have seen people reply to a poster claiming they said something like plant juice was used before breastfeeding...or something.

I can't seem to find the actual post. I would like to reserve judgement until I see the post in question.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

I have as much right as any trans woman does.

...

Erasing the word woman because it's deemed offensive by a tiny minority is not inclusive, and it's bizarre that you think it is.

Well you have as much right as anyone does, that is to say - none.

It’s still bizarre that you argue that words are being erased in spite of your continuing use of the words. The words you want people to use aren’t being used is all because the people using them are referring to more than just women. They have the right to do that, you just don’t have the right to stop them.

Brian Hartman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well you have as much right as anyone does, that is to say - none.

It’s still bizarre that you argue that words are being erased in spite of your continuing use of the words. The words you want people to use aren’t being used is all because the people using them are referring to more than just women. They have the right to do that, you just don’t have the right to stop them.

If JK Rowling had published one book and then tweeted what she had recently, then her career would have been over. No more books. If she was lucky she might have been allowed a new career as cleaner. The only thing that saved her is her wealth and status.

How can you defend that?

Tired Gardener

Gruffalox wrote: »

Or as Shania might say, Non Trans man, I feel like a non trans woman.

The Weather girls hit sounds odd now...

'It's raining cis men, transgender men.

A(cis)men.'

Applying this newspeak to old songs is going to make them into a word salad!

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well you have as much right as anyone does, that is to say - none.

It’s still bizarre that you argue that words are being erased in spite of your continuing use of the words. The words you want people to use aren’t being used is all because the people using them are referring to more than just women. They have the right to do that, you just don’t have the right to stop them.

I haven't at any point suggested that I, as an individual, am being prevented from using these words. I have made it clear that I'm talking about governments, NGOs and advocacy groups who propose and adopt public policy.

Your paltry attempts to try and characterise my position as something other than what I have clearly stated only shows how weak your own position actually is.

Tired Gardener

Brian Hartman wrote: »

If JK Rowling had published one book and then tweeted what she had recently, then her career would have been over. No more books. If she was lucky she might have been allowed a new career as cleaner. The only thing that saved her is her wealth and status.

How can you defend that?

Regarding her wealth, she has given millions away to help single parent focused charities. So much that she lost her billionaire status. Yet we are to believe from a certain poster that she is a spiteful billionaire. However the same poster also doesn't really accept objective reality... so I'm not sure what to believe.

One eyed Jack

Brian Hartman wrote: »

If JK Rowling had published one book and then tweeted what she had recently, then her career would have been over. No more books. If she was lucky she might have been allowed a new career as cleaner. The only thing that saved her is her wealth and status.

How can you defend that?

How can I defend what? What you’re saying is quite likely true, the same point was made about Stephen Fry when he opened his gob, nobody would have cared what he said if he weren’t in the position he’s in either -


The actor sneers at child sex abuse victims and says free speech is being stifled. But he is part of the 1% who enjoy a platform – it’s ordinary people who struggle to be heard

...

He is allowed to, of course, because of free speech: for in 2016, an absolutist interpretation of free speech has become popular among the chattering classes. If only the overwhelmingly white, middle-class, Oxbridge-educated, male-dominated commentariat would take “freedom from prejudice” as seriously as it takes “freedom of expression”.

Free speech means something only if you have a platform with which to use it. These free speech fetishists don’t seem to realise that “free speech” is a privilege usually afforded only to people like themselves. To blithely assert that everyone enjoys the same right to free speech is like claiming that I have a right to buy a large house in north London because there is a “free market”. Theoretically it is possible, but life in our real world isn’t like that.


No one would listen to Stephen Fry if he was poor


It’s precisely because of their positions in respectable high society that they imagine they have the power to take a dump on the people they imagine are beneath them.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

I haven't at any point suggested that I, as an individual, am being prevented from using these words. I have made it clear that I'm talking about governments, NGOs and advocacy groups who propose and adopt public policy.

Your paltry attempts to try and characterise my position as something other than what I have clearly stated only shows how weak your own position actually is.

You’re in an untenably weak position if you’re attempting to argue that Governments, NGO’s and advocacy groups are being forced by anyone to use terminology they don’t want to, when the reality is that they are using the terminology they want to in order to be as inclusive as possible to appeal to as broad an audience as possible.

Your position was about as clear as any definition of womanhood tbh.

Brian Hartman

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Regarding her wealth, she has given millions away to help single parent focused charities. So much that she lost her billionaire status. Yet we are to believe from a certain poster that she is a spiteful billionaire. However the same poster also doesn't really accept objective reality... so I'm not sure what to believe.

She must still be a millionaire many times over. She'll always have the royalties. The loser men harassing her online can't take that away from her.

Maybe she'll start donating money to a freedom of speech group?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CroatoanCat wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been highlighted, but here is a link to an absolutely heartbreaking piece in The Sunday Times today on female detransitioners:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/25f95e06-bf8f-11ea-9ea2-5a548b3aebca?shareToken=0db1eb05b264c2938550c78050d3106d

(That link will allow you to read the article without signing up to anything.)

These young women are being utterly failed. We must speak up for them and others like them. Please, I urge everybody, to read this with an open mind.

I’m going to have to work my way up to reading that because I know it’ll be heart-breaking.

In the last few days, someone was banned from Twitter for saying in a tweet that only females get cervical cancer. Now, it was pointed out that that Twitter user was no angel but the fact remains the tweet that got them banned said “Only females get cervical cancer.”

https://twitter.com/hammer_of_glass/status/1282011086305271808?s=21

We’re through the looking glass people.

Brian Hartman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How can I defend what? What you’re saying is quite likely true, the same point was made about Stephen Fry when he opened his gob, nobody would have cared what he said if he weren’t in the position he


It’s precisely because of their positions in respectable high society that they imagine they have the power to take a dump on the people they imagine are beneath them.

I don't know how you can be so indifferent to whats happening. Can you not see the danger in mobs silencing people?

Might happen to you. Being woke may not be enough to save you.

Tired Gardener

Brian Hartman wrote: »

She must still be a millionaire many times over. She'll always have the royalties. The loser men harassing her online can't take that away from her.

Maybe she'll start donating money to a freedom of speech group?

Oh most certainly! She still has more wealth than the Queen Elizabeth II. Her name opens a lot of publishing doors for her. Regardless of the recent outcry, her books will still sell, and publishing houses would be making a poor financial choice to not take her work. It does mean that her wealth has proceeded her, where up coming writers have to prove themselves, Rowling simply doesn't.

I tried to keep track of the number of charities she founded or funded... she feels that it is unethical for her to have such a large wealth. It is a refreshing stance for someone wealthy to take. I imagine over the years we'll see her give even more millions away.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Regarding her wealth, she has given millions away to help single parent focused charities. So much that she lost her billionaire status. Yet we are to believe from a certain poster that she is a spiteful billionaire. However the same poster also doesn't really accept objective reality... so I'm not sure what to believe.

You’d swear from the way you’re going on it was Mother Teresa we were talking about, and even she wouldn’t be a great example of your attempt to portray JK as some sort of benevolent nominee for Sainthood for her contributions to charitable causes that meant she lost her billionaire status, must have been terrible for her. Ahh that completely changes everything.

It doesn’t, and that’s objective reality, as opposed to viewing anything with an inherently biased perspective and claiming it to be objective reality just because you say so.

volchitsa

Brian Hartman wrote: »

I have seen people reply to a poster claiming they said something like plant juice was used before breastfeeding...or something.

I can't seem to find the actual post. I would like to reserve judgement until I see the post in question.

Here's one of them (there were several)
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110555254

Tired Gardener

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m going to have to work my way up to reading that because I know it’ll be heart-breaking.

In the last few days, someone was banned from Twitter for saying in a tweet that only females get cervical cancer. Now, it was pointed out that that Twitter user was no angel but the fact remains the tweet that got them banned said “Only females get cervical cancer.”

https://twitter.com/hammer_of_glass/status/1282011086305271808?s=21

We’re through the looking glass people.

Wow... just wow!

One eyed Jack

Brian Hartman wrote: »

I don't know how you can be so indifferent to whats happening. Can you not see the danger in mobs silencing people?

Might happen to you. Being woke may not be enough to save you.

Absolutely I can, and that’s exactly what mobs are trying to do is silence people whom they disagree with, like JK trying to incite yet another pile-on against an organisation who she has an issue with. I’m far from indifferent to people attempting to silence people whom they disagree with.

In reality people who are transgender are but a tiny minority in society, and they present no threat to anyone, and the vast majority of people in society have no issues with them. But there are a tiny minority of people like JK and they have a massive following of 14.5 million on social media, who like to portray themselves as the victim when the ideology they contributed to turns on them.

I’m far from woke btw, I’m not interested at all in virtue signalling nonsense, because you’re right, one day the same virtue signalling twats who bang on about free speech and their rights might come for me, only difference being that it’ll be a fair fight because we’ll all have equal recognition in law.

Tired Gardener

volchitsa wrote: »

Here's one of them (there were several)
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110555254

This is apt.

https://youtu.be/jcF-1AoDO18

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Like Emmeline Pankhurst, it doesn’t take much to convince you that someone is anti-woman, they just have to disagree with you.

I don't take issue with you disagreeing with me, I take issue with you suggesting that women had nothing to do with the women's rights movement and their achievements which is as insulting as it is factually incorrect.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Absolutely I can, and that’s exactly what mobs are trying to do is silence people whom they disagree with, like JK trying to incite yet another pile-on against an organisation who she has an issue with. I’m far from indifferent to people attempting to silence people whom they disagree with.

So, the solution to these fears around silencing is to silence JK?

Most of us on here are trying to have a civil conversation about the extent to which sex-based rights can and should be eroded to facilitate trans rights.

Trans activists desperately want people discussing these issues - even in the most civil way - to shut up and go away, have come up with the demeaning acronym TERF and are constantly trying to get people cancelled... yet you're worried about them being silenced?

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

I don't take issue with you disagreeing with me, I take issue with you suggesting that women had nothing to do with the women's rights movement and their achievements which is as insulting as it is factually incorrect.

Hold on a minute, that’s nothing like what you said the first time? What you said the first time, and what I objected to was your suggestion that women fought hard for their rights -

KiKi III wrote: »

Are trans people unaware of how hard women had to fight for our rights?

Of course the women involved in the women’s rights movement had a lot to do with the fact that they were women. But there wasn’t a whole lot of fighting involved, which is why when you used Emily Davison as an example, I pointed out that she was nothing more than an unfortunate pawn in Emmeline Pankhursts warmongering politics.

Emmeline Pankhurst is often thought of as the founder of the women’s rights movement, but I’ve already demonstrated to you how Emmeline would treat those women who disagreed with her, even to the extent that she would disown her own daughters when they didn’t agree with their mothers politics. Emmeline was only interested in people who agreed with her, as opposed to actually supporting the women’s rights movement. The women’s rights movement was just a convenient platform for her more self-serving interests, not unlike the same sort of behaviour on display from JK.

JK would be just as likely to throw any woman under the bus who disagreed with her, while still claiming she’s a champion for women’s rights and free speech.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hold on a minute, that’s nothing like what you said the first time? What you said the first time, and what I objected to was your suggestion that women fought hard for their rights -

Of course the women involved in the women’s rights movement had a lot to do with the fact that they were women. But there wasn’t a whole lot of fighting involved, which is why when you used Emily Davison as an example, I pointed out that she was nothing more than an unfortunate pawn in Emmeline Pankhursts warmongering politics.

Emmeline Pankhurst is often thought of as the founder of the women’s rights movement, but I’ve already demonstrated to you how Emmeline would treat those women who disagreed with her, even to the extent that she would disown her own daughters when they didn’t agree with their mothers politics. Emmeline was only interested in people who agreed with her, as opposed to actually supporting the women’s rights movement. The women’s rights movement was just a convenient platform for her more self-serving interests, not unlike the same sort of behaviour on display from JK.

JK would be just as likely to throw any woman under the bus who disagreed with her, while still claiming she’s a champion for women’s rights and free speech.

Reducing the women's rights movement to just one woman because you can discredit her is revisionist bullsh1t.

Even in the link you posted, Millicent Fawcett is stated as the founder of the women's rights movement but because she's less easy to discredit you ignored her. And while both of those women were leaders in their movements there were thousands of women involved in local groups whose names we don't know but whose activism led to social change. Not least the women during WW1 who took on men's jobs and proved they could do them.

Nobody got the bullets and grenades out during the repeal referendum either, but that was a fight for women's rights too. The idea that "fighting for rights" only involves actual warfare is nonsense.

Gruffalux

Been on my mind a bit today so thought I would broach this part of the subject that is hardly ever mentioned. The reason why it is not mentioned so much is that Raymond Blanchard is not approved of for his theories . He is a long time practising psychologist, sexologist and Professor of psychiatry with emphasis on work and research on transgenderism and paraphilias.
Ray - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Blanchard

Blanchard coined the term "autogynephilia" to describe trans women with an erotic desire "to be women," and hypothesized that all gender dysphoria experienced by this group is of two types: "homosexual" gender dysphoria and "non-homosexual" gender dysphoria. Blanchard defined the former as being present in transsexuals attracted to men, while he defined the latter as being present in transsexuals attracted to the idea of themselves as women

Raymond's autogynephilia grouping is considered transphobic. But it must be noted that he developed his ideas having compassionately researched the opinions of transgender people and being prominent to advocate for Sex Reassignment Surgery in the presence of persistent dysphoria. At the time of his research he believed autogynephilia accounted for 60% of MtF trans people. He believes that rate has increased to about 75% plus, as coming out as trans has become more of a thing.

Blanchard writes about the paraphilia here - https://quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/



Alice Dreger on Autogynephilia - http://alicedreger.com/autogyn

Michael Bailey on Autogynephilia - https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/autogynephilia.htm

Note - in that article directly above mention is made of how the arousal and desire can arise in childhood.




There is nothing wrong with Autogynephilia. But a persistent paraphilia in a certain number of its citizens is not among any good reasons for a culture to begin to mess with reason, scientific fact and biological fact. Just because some trans identifying people enjoy harmlessly chatting about makeup with the lesbians does not mean rational people have to accommodate them and avow fiercely that transwomen are actual women.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

So, the solution to these fears around silencing is to silence JK?

Most of us on here are trying to have a civil conversation about the extent to which sex-based rights can and should be eroded to facilitate trans rights.

Trans activists desperately want people discussing these issues - even in the most civil way - to shut up and go away, have come up with the demeaning acronym TERF and are constantly trying to get people cancelled... yet you're worried about them being silenced?

That’s not any solution I proposed anyway. Everyone has an equal right to speak for themselves as JK, and I have no doubt that as many people as there are who disagree with JK, there are an overwhelming amount who rush to support her and go on the attack against people who disagree with her.

The starting point of your civil conversation is based upon the false premise that anyone’s rights are being eroded, quite the opposite - people still have the same rights as they had before, and now they have more rights, and that includes people who are transgender as having the right to be protected from discrimination and equal freedom as anyone else in a democratic society. What you’re appearing to argue are about perceived sex-based rights that you claim are being eroded, but that’s not what’s happening in reality. What you’re trying to argue would be like suggesting that men’s rights are being eroded as a consequence of women gaining equal rights to men. Some men still do argue that men’s rights are being eroded by feminists, but it’s simply not what is happening in reality.

I’m not a trans activist btw nor would I characterise trans activists in the same way as you do, I don’t imagine the vast majority of them actually do want anyone cancelled or told to shut up or any of the rest of it, not forgetting that the vast majority of trans activists are women in any case who identify themselves as feminists, and hence invented the rather stupid TERF nonsense to discredit people who disagreed with them. I’m certainly not worried about them being silenced, they’re a pain in the hole.

I am concerned about anyone who has a following of 14 million people on social media claiming they are being silenced when a bunch of complete nobodies rises to their provocation. I don’t think they represent anyone other than themselves, but other people do imagine they are representative of people who are transgender and so they’ll take it out on the next person they meet who they think might be transgender or is transgender, and that’s what I disagree with, and that’s why it is necessary for people who are transgender to be protected from that sort of discrimination.

Brian Hartman

volchitsa wrote: »

Here's one of them (there were several)
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110555254

Thanks for that. I am beginning to see that engaging with 'Jack' may not be the most productive endeavor.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

Reducing the women's rights movement to just one woman because you can discredit her is revisionist bullsh1t.

Even in the link you posted, Millicent Fawcett is stated as the founder of the women's rights movement but because she's less easy to discredit you ignored her. And while both of those women were leaders in their movements there were thousands of women involved in local groups whose names we don't know but whose activism led to social change. Not least the women during WW1 who took on men's jobs and proved they could do them.

Nobody got the bullets and grenades out during the repeal referendum either, but that was a fight for women's rights too. The idea that "fighting for rights" only involves actual warfare is nonsense.

It was you who told me to educate myself and look up Emily Davison? I didn’t call what you tried to do revisionist bullshìt, but if I were being frank, that’s exactly what it was. I didn’t see any need to address Millicent Fawcett as she wasn’t a warmonger, nor did she fight, she was definitely more interested in pacifism and didn’t agree with Pankhursts methods. It’s not an attempt to discredit anyone, it’s simply to show you that the narrative you were trying to paint was lacking in context.

The idea of fighting usually does imply some sort of physical force is involved against an enemy, hence why I made the point that I couldn’t think of any bullet stoppers who were women (as opposed to the numbers of bullet stoppers who were men, pressured into doing so by the White Feather movement). The fact that there were women who tried to kill themselves isn’t what I would consider a particularly valuable contribution to the women’s rights movement.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not a trans activist btw nor would I characterise trans activists in the same way as you do, I don’t imagine the vast majority of them actually do want anyone cancelled or told to shut up or any of the rest of it, not forgetting that the vast majority of trans activists are women in any case who identify themselves as feminists, and hence invented the rather stupid TERF nonsense to discredit people who disagreed with them. I’m certainly not worried about them being silenced, they’re a pain in the hole.

There is very obviously a vocal/ visible minority of individuals whose intolerance of different views borders on the surreal. Most of them probably aren't trans, that's true. However, there was one case on Twitter last year, when a transwoman announced that she was unfollowing any of her friends who followed some account that she believed was transphobic -- it might have been Graham Linehan, or someone with similarly obnoxious views. Anyway that was fine, I get that.

But then other people started doing the same, people who aren't even trans, started turning on people whom they evidently knew in real life. Real friendships, or acquaintances, were being sundered unless a person agreed to unfollow named individuals (more people became added to 'the list').

I remember watching this play-out in real time, and the hyperbole growing more and more hysterical; one person pleaded that she knew this 'cancelled' person personally, and it wasn't fair to ask her to cut him/ her off -- to no avail.

It is totally pointless to deny the existence of cancel culture, or to downplay it. It is visible to anyone with eyes in their head. And it's backfiring, as far as I can see, and creating an unwelcome sense of antagonism towards the trans community, by people who are only to happy to find a valid criticism that they can use against trans activists. It's doing more harm than good.

Smacruairi

Brian Hartman wrote: »

Thanks for that. I am beginning to see that engaging with 'Jack' may not be the most productive endeavor.

You're correct there.I've never seen a poster able to devote so much time and effort into typing relentlessly and never even contemplate being in any way wrong. A wall of text that shifts the goalposts endlessly is all you get.

What I really don't understand is, when transsexuals say "I feel like a woman". What does that feel like, other than resorting to gender clichés? I look at my female friends, they're all unique and different, the only difference to my male friends is their sex organs. I get on extremely well with all of them, share similar hobbies and interests, believe we are all equally capable in so many ways. Am I too woke that I don't want to categorise them any more, or not woke enough!?

If a guy or girl wants to change their body to affect their confidence, fine, play away. They can fancy who they want, be into any kinks they want, within reason. I don't understand why that's not enough. If you're compelling me to then say black is white it strikes me that that insistence can only come from a place of severe insecurity.